Some Notes on the Pinner Affair by Shnayer Leiman
Kudos to Dan Rabinowitz for his informative account of the Pinner affair and, more importantly, for reproducing the original texts of Pinner’s 1834 Hebrew prospectus and the Hatam Sofer’s 1835 retraction. The comments that follow are intended to add to Dan’s discussion.

1. “In his retraction the Hatam Sofer says the text [of his approbation to the Pinner translation] was published in a Hamburg newspaper.”

It appears more likely that the Hatam Sofer’s words should be rendered: “I have already made public my grievous sin and error – that I wrote a letter of approbation on behalf of Dr. Pinner’s German translation of the Talmud – and it [Hebrew: iggerati] was published in Hamburg. In it, I confessed, and was not embarrassed to admit, that due to my sins, my eyes were besmeared and blinded…” What was published in Hamburg, then, was the Hatam Sofer’s first public retraction of the letter of approbation, not the letter of approbation itself. Moreover, no mention is made of a Hamburg newspaper. (In 1835, no German-Jewish or Hebrew newspapers were published in Hamburg.) It was published as a broadside, the text of which the Hatam Sofer sent from Pressburg to Hamburg for publication. In was intercepted by the Chief Rabbi, R. Akiva Wertheimer (d. 1838), who refused to publish the text precisely as the Hatam Sofer had written it. (This was in 1834, when the Hatam Sofer was posek ha-dor and gadol ha-dor, and about 72 years old – and we think we have problems!) The Hatam Sofer had to revise the text of the retraction, after which it was published in Hamburg some time between December 23, 1834 (when Rabbi Wertheimer addressed his objections to the Hatam Sofer) and January 22, 1835 (when the second retraction was published by the Hatam Sofer himself in Pressburg). See R. Shlomo Sofer, איגרות סופרים (Vienna, 1929), part 2, letter 66, pp. 70-71. Indeed, one suspects that the need for a second retraction by the Hatam Sofer was occasioned by this act of censorship on the part of the Hamburg authorities. No copies of the Hamburg broadside seem to have been preserved in any of the public collections of Judaica.

2. “The full text of the retraction appears in three places.”

It also appears in a fourth place: Y. Stern, ed., לקוטי תשובות חתם סופר (London, 1965), letter section, p. 90-91. This edition of the text is particularly important because it was obviously copied from the original broadside. Unlike the other editions of the text, the London edition contains two different fonts, Rashi script and enlarged square Hebrew characters – exactly like the original broadside. In a blatant misstatement of fact, the editor of the London edition, in a footnote, indicates that he copied the text from Greenwald’s אוצר נחמד. If so, he could not have known about the two different fonts and where to use them! In any event, Greenwald’s text lacks words that appear in the London edition! Most important, Greenwald’s text gives as the date the broadside was written: Thursday, 22 Tammuz , 5595 (= 1835). (In 1835, however, 22 Tammuz fell on Sunday, July 19.) The London edition gives as the date the broadside was written: Thursday, 21 Tevet, 5595 (= January 22, 1835). This is precisely the date that appears on the original broadside, as posted by Dan! One suspects that the discrepancy between the editor’s claim and the printed page originated in a parting of the ways between the editor and the great bibliophile and scholar, Abraham Ha-Levi Schischa (see the introductory page to the volume). Schischa’s deft hand is evident throughout the volume, and no doubt he had access to the original broadside. Perhaps when the editor and Schischa parted ways, the editor – who no longer had access to the original broadside – claimed that he copied the text from Greenwald, when in fact Schisha had prepared the text based on the original broadside. There remain some very slight discrepancies between the London edition and the original broadside, probably due to the editor of the London edition. The editor’s misstatement of fact misled, among others, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, שו”ת ציץ אליעזר 15:3, p. 8.

3. “As one can see, the retraction is dated 21 Tevet, 1834.”
As indicated above, 21 Tevet in the year 5595 fell in 1835. In the light of the documents posted by Dan, we can reconstruct the chronological sequence of events. Sometime in mid- 1834, the Hatam Sofer wrote a letter of approbation on behalf of Pinner’s translation of the Talmud into German. (One should mention for the record that it was much more than a mere translation. Pinner vocalized the Mishnah and punctuated [commas and question marks] the entire text of the Talmud, Rashi, Tosafos, and Rosh to Bavli Berakhoth! He also included occasional חידושים from his רבי מובהק, Rabbi Jacob of Lissa [d. 1832], at whose feet he sat for seven consecutive years.) On August 15, 1834, Pinner published his prospectus in Hebrew, announcing to the world at large that he had received letters of approbation from “all the גדולי ישראל in France, Italy, and German” and from none other than the Hatam Sofer himself! (The English version lists the same date, but makes no mention of the Hatam Sofer.) It was precisely the publication of the prospectus that forced the Hatam Sofer to go public. Now all of the Hatam Sofer’s colleagues knew what he had done, and the criticism that followed was merciless. See the letter of the Dutch communal leader and philanthropist, R. Zvi Hirsch Lehren (d. 1853), to the Hatam Sofer, dated January 11, 1835 (in איגרת סופרים, part 2, letter 69, pp. 73-78). It would no longer suffice to simply send a note to Pinner and ask that he return the letter of approbation. Since it was public knowledge that the Hatam Sofer had lent his name to Pinner’s translation, nothing less than a public retraction would set the record straight. By December 1834, the Hatam Sofer had already prepared an official retraction for publication (by disciples of his in Hamburg who had easy access to the local Jewish publishing houses) in Hamburg. After some delay due to censorship, the retraction was published either in late December 1834 or early January 1835. A second, fuller retraction was published in Pressburg on January 22, 1835. For Pressburg as the place of publication of the second retraction, see N. Ben Menachem, “הדפוס העברי בפרעסבורג,” Kiryat Sefer 33(1958), p. 529.

4. The letter of retraction refers to Rabbi Nathan Adler. This, of course refers to Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler (1803-1890) of Hanover, and later Chief Rabbi of Britain, a much younger contemporary of the Hatam Sofer. He is not to be confused with the Hatam Sofer’s teacher, Rabbi Nathan Adler of Frankfurt (1741-1800), who could not have been consulted by Pinner. Cf. Torah U-Madda Journal 5(1994), p. 131; (see now the corrected version “The Talmud in Translation” in Printing The Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum, 2006, p. 133).

5. Although Pinner insisted on going ahead with the project, despite the Hatam Sofer’s protests, credit should be given where credit is due. Pinner omitted mention of the Hatam Sofer’s letter of approbation in the one volume that he published in 1842.

6. Regarding why no further volumes of Pinner’s translation were published, the simplest answer is: lack of funds and lack of determination to see a project through from beginning to end. Pinner, a moderate Maskil, spent a lifetime dreaming about all sorts of literary projects, none of which came to fruition. These included attempts at listing all Hebrew books and manuscripts, and all tombstone inscriptions of famous rabbis and scholars (including Moses Mendelssohn, Isaac Satanov, Hartwig Wessely, and Israel Jacobson). See his כתבי יד (Berlin, 1861), a partial publication of a book with no real beginning and no real end that captures the very essence of Pinner’s personality. In that volume, pp. 62-64, Pinner published a lengthy fund-raising letter he wrote in 1847 in order to raise funds to publish his diary, a kind of travelogue that would introduce readers to the wonders of the world. It was yet another of his failed projects. In the case of Pinner’s translation of the Talmud, Czar Nicholas withdrew his support and there was no one to pick up the slack. Note too the powerful language at the end of the Hatam’s Sofer’s retraction. Should Pinner insist on publishing the volumes, no Jewish publishing house may agree to publish the volumes, and no Jew may buy or read them. This surely didn’t help either publication or sales. For the powerful impact of the Hatam Sofer’s letters of approbation on the Jewish community at large, see my “Masorah and Halakhah: A Study in Conflict,” in M. Cogan, B. Eichler, and J. Tigay, eds., Tehillah Le-Moshe (Moshe Greenberg Festschrift), Winona Lake, 1997, pp. 305-306.

Book announcement:  New work on the Seder Night

By Eliezer Brodt

דוד הנקשה, מה נשתנה: ליל הפסח בתלמודם של חכמים,
מגנס, 626 עמודים

I am very happy to announce the publication of an important work (in time for Pesach) which I have been eagerly awaiting; Professor David Henshke of the Talmud Department at Bar Ilan University’s long awaited volume, Ma Nishtanah: Leil HaPesach BiTalmudam shel Chachamim. The book was printed by Magnes Press.

Why am I excited about this work?

A few years ago I wrote:

Perhaps the topic which has engendered the most commentary in Jewish literature is the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are all kinds, in all languages, and with all types of commentary, pictures, etc. Whatever style one can think of, not one, but many Haggadahs have been written. So, whether it’s derush, kabbalah, halakha, mussar or chassidus there are plenty of Haggadahs out there. Then, there are people who specialize in collecting haggadahs although they do not regularly collect seforim. In almost every Jewish house today one can find many kinds of Haggadahs. In 1901 Shmuel Wiener, in A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, started to list all the different printings of the Haggadah. Later, in 1960, Abraham Yaari, in his work A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, restarted the listing and reached the number 2700. After that, many bibliographers added ones which Yaari omitted. In 1997, Yitzchak Yudlov printed his bibliography on the Haggadah,  The Haggadah Thesaurus. This thesaurus contains a beautiful bibliography of the Pesach Haggadahs from the beginning of printing until 1960. The final number in his bibliography listing is 4715. Of course ever since 1960 there has been many more printed. Every year people print new ones; even people who had never written on the Haggadah have had a Haggadah published under their name, based on culling their other writings and collecting material on the Haggadah. When one goes to the seforim store before Pesach it has become the custom to buy at least one new Haggadah; of course one finds themselves overwhelmed not knowing which to pick!

The current volume is certainly not a light read but it will help one understand numerous sugyos of the seder night in new and in deeper levels than before. It is sure to become the new definitive work on the seder night putting it in a original perspective.

If one is interested in reading some articles by Professor Henshke that were later updated and incorporated into this work, feel free to email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Here are the Table of Contents of this special work.

Simply looking at it gives one sense of some of the issues he deals with.

The book can be purchased via Magnes Press or through me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Copies of this work will be arriving at Biegeleisen shortly.

 

[1] הכינוי ‘ליל הסדר’ לליל ט”ו בניסן איננו מחידושי הלשון העברית החדשה, כפי שסבר י’ כנעני, אוצר הלשון העברית,ערך ‘סדר’ (עמ’ 3947), שהרי הוא מתועד כבר אצל מהרי”ל, במפנה המאות י”ד-ט”ו למניינם; ראה מהרי”ל, סדר ההגדה, ח, עמ’ צב. אך ספק אם יש למצאו קודם לכן, והשווה המילון החדש של א’ אבן שושן, ערך ‘ליל’ (עמ’ 812), המייחס את הביטוי לימי הביניים, בלא ציון מקור. הרבה קודם לכן מוצאים אנו את ה’סדר’ גרידא (ראה לדוגמה המקורות שהביא א’ בן יהודה במילונו, ערך ‘סדר’, עמ’ 3971), וכן את ‘סדר ליל פסח’ (ראה למשל ראבי”ה, סי’ תקכד, עמ’ 152). כלום הלעז sederabend הוא פרי תרגום של ‘ליל הסדר’ – או שמא איפכא? בשל המקור המאוחר יחסית של הביטוי ‘ליל הסדר’, נקטנו בכותרת החיבור את הלשון ‘ליל הפסח’. ועל “ליל הפסח” ראה להלן.
[2] ראה: יודלוב, אוצר, שם נרשמו “קרוב לחמש מאות פירושים… ממזרח וממערב, מכל קצות הקשת המחשבתית רבת הגונים והענפים שבעולם האמונה והמחשבה היהודית לדורותיה”, כדברי י”מ תא-שמע בהקדמתו שם, עמ’ ח, והואיל והרישום מגיע שם לשנת תש”ך, הרי כיום יש להוסיף כמובן לא מעט; אך מעֵבר לכך, רשימה זו אינה כוללת אלא את דפוסי ההגדות המלוּות בפירושים, ואילו לביאורי ההגדה שמצאו מקומם בשאר כל הספרות התורנית דומה שאין מספר
[3] ראה, לדוגמה בעלמא, מפתח הספרים שבסוף אוצר מפרשי התלמוד – פסחים, ד: ערבי פסחים, ירושלם תשנ”ד, עמ’ תתסט-תתצח.
[4] ראה למשל פינקלשטיין, א-ב..
[5] ראה למשל מאמרו רב ההשפעה של שטיין, סימפוזיון; על הבעייתיות שבכיווּן זה ראה להלן..
[6] ראה למשל דאובה שצוין להלן…, ובעקבותיו יובל, שני גוים, עמ’ 92; על כך שההנחה שביסוד דברי דאובה אינה מתקיימת, ראה להלן שם בהמשך. רעיונותיו המעניינים של יובל, המתאר את ההגדה כתגובה לנצרות, בעייתיים מבחינת בירור המקורות; ראה על כך עוד, לדוגמה, להלן… בתחום היחס לנצרות מצוי גם חיבורו של ליאונרד, אך הלה מבקש לברר את העניינים גם מתוכם. אלא שאף כאן ניכרת היטב בעייתיות ברקע התלמודי; וראה, לדוגמה, להלן…
[7] רוזנטל, המורה, עמ’ טו
[8] השווה: רוזנטל שם; ספרִי שמחת הרגל, עמ’ 2-1
[9] כבר העירו על ניסוחו של הרמב”ם, בקהיר של המאה הי”ב, לעקרונו של ויליאם איש אוקהם, באנגליה של המאה הי”ד: “אם, למשל, יש ביכולתנו להניח מתכונת אשר על-פיה תהיינה אפשריות התנועות… על-פי שלושה גלגלים, ומתכונת אחרת אשר על-פיה יתאפשר אותו דבר עצמו על-פי ארבעה גלגלים, ראוי לנו לסמוך על המתכונת אשר מספר התנועות בה קטן יותר” (מורה הנבוכים ב, יא, מהד’ שורץ עמ’ 290). ואכמ”ל במקורותיו.
[10] החיבור הנוכחי איננו הראשון שבו מבקש אני לבחון ולהדגים מתודה זו; שני קודמיו (משנה ראשונה; שמחת הרגל) נתמקדו בתורת התנאים..
[11] לחיבורו זה הוסיף תבורי מחקרים נוספים בענייני ליל הסדר, ואלה שנזכרו בחיבורנו רשומים ברשימת ספרות המחקר שבסופו; וראה עוד סיכומו “The Passover Haggadah”, בתוך: S. Safrai et al. (eds.), The Literature of the Sages, II, Assen 2006, pp. 327-338
[12] דיונים בספרות הגאונים והראשונים נערכו כאן כשיש בהם כדי להבהיר את הכיווּנים שהועלו באשר להלכה החז”לית.

Anim Zemiros – A Poem for All Ages

By Rabbi Elchanan Adler

Feldheim Publishers, New York, 2020, 192 pages

Reviewed by Myron Wakschlag

Rabbi Myron Wakschlag is a musmach of Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt”l at Yeshivas Brisk of Chicago, and is currently an IT executive in the Washington, DC area. He has researched and published on the early Orthodox rabbinate in America.

It is rare to find a book that is able to successfully illuminate a complex topic, yet still remain captivating and easily accessible. Rabbi Elchanan Adler’s new sefer on Anim Zemiros is just such a book. While Anim Zemiros is familiar to most people, its contents remain largely enigmatic due to its challenging Hebrew terminology and its esoteric meaning. Rabbi Adler has opened up new pathways that enable the reader to unlock both the simple meaning and the profound concepts lying beneath the surface of the text.

In this beautiful volume, Rabbi Adler notes how each stanza of Anim Zemiros is based on specific verses from Tanach or Talmudic/Midrashic passages. This itself is a valuable tool that sheds light on the underpinnings of the text. But the real strength of the book is in its ability to be megaleh amukos, to uncover the deep hidden beauty of the poem and make it accessible to the average reader untrained in the analysis of medieval liturgical poems. Rabbi Adler’s analysis weaves together explanations offered by traditional sources with his own fascinating insights. Rabbi Adler, an esteemed Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary for over 20 years, is an erudite scholar and master teacher who has an unusual gift for presenting difficult material in a way that is easy to understand.

The sefer begins with an overview that describes the origin of the formal name Shir HaKavod, the authorship and dating of the work, the origins of its inclusion in the liturgy, and the manner in which it is recited in the synagogue. It then transitions into an analysis of the overall themes, structure, and style of the text, including many interesting observations about the common ideas that are expressed within each section, and numerical allusions that emerge from the text. The next section transitions into the essence of the book, which comprises a textual analysis of each stanza, offering unique insights, explanations, interpretations, and suggestions to explicate the poem based on the full range of rabbinic literature. While it is not an exhaustive treatment of every word in the poem, Rabbi Adler’s choice of what to include helps to capture and hold the reader’s interest.

The book is valuable on many levels. In addition to its primary objective of elucidating both the plain and hidden meaning behind Anim Zemiros, a careful reading of the book allows the reader to acquire a methodology for analyzing piyyutim. Determining exactly what the author of Anim Zemiros meant to convey and what messages he buried beneath the surface is much like solving a mystery. Rabbi Adler employs many analytical tools to uncover the clues and piece together the various threads. It is enlightening to study the manner in which he carefully examines the text to identify nuances and different shades of meaning based on the poem’s rhythm, meter, textual variances, word roots, grammar, alternative translations, vowelization, allegory, and symbolism. He also often adduces prooftexts from Tanach, and contrasts the opinions of the various early and later commentaries to suggest various possibilities in the text. Utilizing this methodology, Rabbi Adler is able to “connect the dots” and uncover the concealed gems that are impossible to discern at first glance.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to Rabbi Adler, not only for giving me a much greater understanding of the magnificence of Anim Zemiros and its prominent place in our liturgy, but also for imparting his approach to analyzing piyyutim and understanding their significance. He has given me a derech to better appreciate medieval liturgical poems in general, and has also provided me with the tools to be able to analyze them on my own.

On Purim and the 15 of Av and Shevat these were vacation days for the Rabbis, especially the 15ht and the 33rd day of the Omer for the students and their teachers. On these days the students did not go to school nor did the teachers go in. The teachers were required to distribute to the students as they left that morning, on the 15th and the 33rd day of the Omer whiskey and sweet cake from the teachers’ own pocket, they should not charge the students, this is the custom.

The Messilat Yesharim, by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato (Ramchal), is one of the foundational works of mussar. [1] The Gra, among others, praise the Messilat Yesharim.[2] As such, any addition to its oeuvre is important in its own right. The Ofeq Institute* has recently published an English translation of an alternative version of the Messilat Yesharim. This version is fundamentally different than the standard edition of Messilat Yesharim. The standard edition is divided into chapters based upon various character traits. The second, this new version, eschews the chapter divisions and instead is arranged in a conversation or dialogue format. Specifically, a dialogue between a “wise man” and a “pious person” is the format of this version. This second version comes from a manuscript in the Baron Ginzburg collection in the St. Petersberg Library. The manuscript is in the Ramchal’s own hand and is substantially larger than the other version. Although the Hebrew edition of the dialogue version has been available for a bit (also from Ofeq),[3] this version has now been published in an English edition and this edition will be the focus of this post.

First a word about the Ofeq Institute. Over the past twenty years Mechon Ofeq has released many editions of the works of the geonim, rishonim and achronim covering all genres of Jewish literature. All these works are critical editions with extensive notes and introductions. Almost all their editions include extensive footnotes. (One of the only complaints some have is that there’s simply too much information in the footnotes). Much like the novel version of Ofeq’s Messilat Yesharim, many of the works are based on manuscripts from the Ginzburg collection, a collection that was only recently released to the public.

To highlight but a few of their other titles. A work on Iyov from the bet midrash of Rashi and a commentary on Yecheskel from R. Yosef Heyun. They begun to publish a critical edition of the rishonim on Torat Kohanim as well as a commentary on Tosefta. They have printed works from geonim like R. Natronai Goan. Many works of rishonim on shas, most well-known being the Tosafas HaRosh on Pesachim and Haggigah, and Tosafos Yeshanim on Yevomos. A facsimile edition of Rambam on Madda and Ahava in the Rambam’s own hand. They have printed hagadahs from rishonim an excellent critical edition of the Seder Hakabalah of the Meriei. Another work of note is Meah Shaearim a two volume edition on hilchos kibud av v’em.

Ofeq, run by R. Avraham Shoshana and based in Cleavland Ohio utilizes not only Torah scholars (read products of Yeshiva education) but experts who are academics as well. For their editon of the R. Natronai Goan they used Professor Brody a leading expert of the geonim period. For other works of rishonim they have used Professors Emanuel, Hevlin and Speigel all experts in their respective fields. Or, in the case of the Messilat Yesharim, Professor Septimus was involved. That is, Ofeq ensures that the works they put out are of a high caliber. To some, this is an anathema. They view the inclusion of non-Torah scholars to be unconscionable. Most recently objections of this nature were expressed by R. Yehuda Liba ben Dovid in Bes HaVaad (see post here ). As I pointed out, however, R. ben Dovid’s position is in the minority.

Aside from Ofeq’s Hebrew publications they also have published some books in English. The Messilat Yesharim, however, is their most ambitious English translation to-date.

This English translation includes an introduction discussing the Messilat Yesharim, the two versions, and the English translation employed. The translation does not skimp in the sense that it is annotated with English notes – something that does not appear in all English translation. Instead, many English translations provide the footnotes in Hebrew. While this seems counter-intuitive as if the person wants to read the work in English, they would like to read the whole work including the footnotes. This edition does not suffer from that and instead, almost everything is in English. Additionally, although Ofeq has published the “dialogue” edition, they also include the original version in translation as well. There are, however, two parts that remain in Hebrew. The first are citations to verses, talmudic passages and the like, the second is the final work included which compares the dialogue version with the standard chapter version. This last section, titled Bein HaMesilot, is in Hebrew.

When it comes to English translations, there are typically two options. The first are academic presses which are typically expensive and not aimed at a popular audience. The second, are the traditional Orthodox presses, while these are typically more readable, they (although not always) don’t provide some of the scholarly detail. Ofeq’s translation of the Messilat Yesharim
strikes a nice balance between these two – they have produced a highly readable yet include the scholarly detail as well.

As mentioned above, what is unique about this copy of the Mesilat Yesharim is that is is written in a completely different style than the current Mesilat Yesharim. This new version is written in a debate form. The Ramchal wrote other works in debate form as well. For example, his work on defending kabbala. For whatever reason, he chose to print the other, standard, version and the debate version remained in manuscript. It’s unclear, however, why the Ramchal chose to do so. Many feel that a debate version is much better for 2 reasons: One, it keeps the reader much more interested and two, it brings out the various points much better as is always in a debate form.

For many years, the sefer Messilat Yesharim was learned as a mussar sefer, becoming one of the classics. Many people used to take it into a dark room and learn it in special tunes saying the words again and again until they penetrated. However, many people have a fear of mussar, having bad memories from yeshiva, forcing themselves to read mussar sefarim during mussar seder that they felt did not talk to them. I would like to suggest a new way to read this sefer. Read it as a regular sefer. Concentrate on the ideas discussed in it, not only focused on the mussar, but rather on the pshatim, aggada and statements throughout the sefer. Just to list a few of these lesser appreciate portions of the Messilat Yesharim:
והנה ודאי שיעזרהו לזה רוב התמדה והעיון במזמורי דוד המלך והתבונוות בם במאמריהם וענינים כי בהיותם כולם מלאים אהבה ויראה וכל מיני חסידות. הבנה בהתבוננו בם. לא ימנע מהתעורר בו התעוררות גדול לצאת בעקבותיו וללכתב בדרכיו. (פרק כא)
Or highlighting the value of reading gedolim books or at least the aggadic section of the gemarah
וכן תועיל הקריאה בסיפור מעשה החסידים באגדות אשר באו שם. כי כל אלה מעוררים את השכל להתיעץ ולעשות כמעשיהם הנחמדים… (פרק כא) In this passage, the Ramchal takes a positive view vis-a-vis working at least if learning remains a main focus
כי הנה העסק מוכרח הוא לאדם לצרוך פרנסתו, אך ריבו העסק אינו מוכרח שיהיה כל כך גדול עד שלא יניח לו מקום אל עבודותו. על כן נצטוינו לקבוע עתים לתורה. (פרק ה וראה פרק כא) And, on keeping chumros he has an intresting point
הוא להחמיר בהם תמיד לחוש אפילו לדברי יחיד במחלקות אם טעמו נראה אפילו שאין הלכה כמותו(פרק יד) Elsewhere he expands on this thought a bit more
באשר כבר יחשבו שהחסידות תלוי בדברי הבל או דברים נגד השכל והדיעה הנכונה. ויאמינו היות כל החסידות תלוי רק באמירת בקשות רבות ווידוים גדולים ובכיות והשתחויות גדולות ובסיגופים הזרים שימית בהם אדם את עצמו כטיבלת הקרא והשלג וכיוצא בדברים אלה… אך מציאות החסידות עצמו הוא דבר עמוק… כי הנה המצות המוטלת על כל ישראל כבר ידועות הן וחובתן ידועה עד היכן היא מגעת. אמנם מי שאוהב את הבוראית”ש אהבה אמתית לא ישתדל ויכון לפטור עצמו במה שכבר מפורסם מן החובה אשר על כל ישראל בכלל… אלא אדרבא… יהיה לי לעינים להרבות בזה הענין ולהרחיב אותו בכל הצדדין שאוכל לדון שרצונו יתברך חפץ בו… נמצא כלל החסידות הרחבת קיום כל המצות בכל הצדדין והתנאים שראוי ושאפשר… (פרק יח)
In the introduction the Ramchal has a puzzling remark, that many have taken issue with, but, in reality, the Ramchal was following in the path of Chovos haLevovvos
היתכן שיגע ויעמול שכלנו בחקירות אשר לא נתחייבו בם, בפלפולים אשר לא יצא לנו שום פרי מהם, ודינים אשר אינם שייכם לנו.
Here R Shoshanah has a nice comment (p. 18) of sources discussing this point.
When he wrote this work the Ramchal wrote a puzzling remark in the beginning showing his humility he writes

R. Sarna writes in his notes on Messilat Yesharim that this statement is the most puzzling statement in the entire sefer to him.

One more nice piece from Messilat Yesharim is:

Turning back to the Ofeq edition in particular, it is important to highlight the footnotes included. While much has been written on the Messilat Yesharim before this edition, especially worthy of mention is the edition of R Sarna. This edition that includes notes by R. Shoshana has included that aside from explaining the text and the concepts therein and providing sources that the Ramchal’s comments are based on in Hazel and the rishonim (as R. Shoshana notes that he has spent many years learning this sefer very carefully) also offers historical info such as on page 6 when dealing with learning pilpul or on page 127 about a custom in those days in Italy where there were large plays and comics played before Jewish audiences.

The only criticism I can think of on this edition is that they should have included all their appendices and introductions that they printed in the Hebrew edition previously printed by them. But, with this new edition it should be much easier to learn And I am sure one will enjoy this all time classic even today.

As Ofeq has extensively utilized manuscripts in both this edition of the Messilat Yesharim as well as in the rest of their publications. We should highlight another book, published by Ofeq, that is on the topic of Hebrew manuscripts. Benjamin Richler’s book, Hebrew Manuscripts: a Treasured Legacy, (this is available to readers of the Seforim blog for a special price of $24.95 including postage – please contact Ofeq their information is provided below) is a great introduction to the world of manuscripts for anyone. The book contains a lot of information and pictures of all types of handwriting. The book traces and describes briefly many manuscript collections, both private and public including the Ginzburg collection – the collection where the dialogue version of MessilatYesharim as well as other important manuscripts were found. It even lists the numbers that some of these seforim have in the very big collections. Besides for this, the book contains some nice descriptions with pictures of many manuscripts. Of interest is on page 50, a picture of a manuscript of a machzor from 1290 that has pictures of malachim with faces of dogs. The book also includes a bit of a history of the various catalogs of manuscripts that have been written until today. Interestingly enough, Richler writes that the JTS and Hebrew University collections are not completely cataloged. (maybe by now, they are – for an update on the JNUL collection see Richler’s post here). He has a chapter discussing the importance of manuscripts besides for ones not printed, which there are many. It also is to check the accuracy of previous editions. This book was written before the Ginzburg collection was released (p. 110). In addition, there’s a excellent chapter on the Cairo Geniza from one of the biggest experts on the geonic era, Professor Robert Brody. Here too, Brody discusses many of the basic questions one has about this topic, such as why all this is in the geniza in the first place. He also discusses where all the documents are location today and the progress of the study of these documents.

NOTES
[1] In an earlier post discussing the content and censorship of the sefer Menuchah u-Kedushah, and I note that according to the author of Menucah u-Kedushah, the Messilat Yesharim was written with ruach ha-kodesh.

[2] For a discussion about the Gra and his views towards R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato and the Messilat Yesharim, see Y. Eliach, HaGra, vol. 1 pp. 240-45, where Eliach devotes a chapter to this issue. There is even a statement attributed to the Gra that there are no extra words in the sefer Messilat Yesharim, until chapter 11. This statement sparked a discussion as to exactly which word in chapter 11 is the extra one that the Gra was referring to. Additionally, it seems that the Gra even had some of the Ramchal’s works in manuscript.

[3] The Hebrew edition includes an extensive introduction enumerating all the differences between the versions by R. Yosef Avivi, an expert on kaballah and especially the Ramchal’s writings.
*As Ofeq’s website is a bit dated, those wishing to obtain a catalogue of Ofeq’s publications should contact them at: Ofeq Institute, 27801 Euclid Ave., Suite 430, Euclid, OH 44132, fax (216) 731-5567; email ofeqinst@core.comTheir contact information in Israel is 02-653-5920, or e-mail: ofeq@013.net